On 09/23/2015 03:18 PM, Chad Joan wrote:


This is why I argued for alternative mixin syntax in D some ... years?
... ago.

It'd be really cool to have a writefln overload that did this:

int somevar = 42;
writefln#("This is ${somevar}");

writefln#("Plus two and you get ${somevar+1}");

Which would just be shorthand for

int somevar = 42;
mixin writefln!("This is ${somevar}");

mixin writefln!("Plus two and you get ${somevar+2}");


I feel like a bit of syntax sugar could go a long way ;)

Yea, the trouble with string mixins is that they're ugly enough people don't like to use them.

I'd argued in the past for a way to tag a CTFE-able string-returning function as being intended for mixing-in, so you could omit the "mixin(...)" part. But we only ever got it for template mixins. Allowing it for string mixins was too controversial. :(

I dunno, maybe even a string mixin sugar as simple as this would be a big help:

mixin!func(args to func here)

ie:

mixin!interp("Some string here")

But I'm guessing the ship's ling since sailed for anything like that.

Reply via email to